Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22650bd6f9d0d7f

Jump to content

Talk:Palestine Chronicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Metallurgist in topic Unreliable source

Unreliable source

[edit]

The wording "HonestReporting reported ..." is an attribution of a fact. In any case, attribution is for sources in the intermediate range between thoroughly reliable and thoroughly unreliable, not for sources that are complete trash like HR. This amounts to citing a rant, which we don't need in this encyclopedia. HR is also misquoted as "simply plagiarized" in the source is not the same as "fully copy-pasted". As an aside, HR is wrong that Modi'in is "is a large city within the Green Line and undisputed territory of Israel" as part of it is in the Latrun no-mans land that is not universally accepted as Israeli territory. Zerotalk 13:59, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its not listed in WP:RSP, and there doesn't seem to be consensus that its generally unreliable, so I think it can be cited here for some minor info and its own opinions about the Palestine Chronicle. G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:08, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Not being on RSP does not been it has not been assessed as a source at RSN. It's been discussed several times at RSN . the most recent being Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_479#HonestReporting, which seems to have found it to be unreliable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Oh, i didnt notice that one.
The consensus in this discussion is unclear, some users said its unreliable, while others said it can be used with atribution or if the material it reports can be "independently verified", some participants did not express opinion on its reliability. G13 vs G14 (talk) 14:26, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're welcome to make another post at RSN asking if Honest Reporting is due in this specific instance, though I am not sure your proposal will gain a favourable reception. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is exactly the problem with RSP, that while somewhat useful, it also creates a false sense of what sources are good and bad. There are good sources not on it and bad sources not on it, which makes it more difficult to assess. And has become too rigid a "policy". Metallurgist (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
Agree that Honest Reporting is not a reliable source and undue to include. It is a pro-Israel advoacy org whose purpose is to discredit organisations that it percieves to be "pro-Palestine". Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the section on HonestReporting in the meantime as WP:ONUS is on those in favor of inclusion. Personally, I don't think the opinion of a partisan advocacy group with a history of spreading false information, specifically in this topic, should be included. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 20:09, 12 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Honest Reporting is a "biased" check on biased sources that themselves ought not to be considered reliable by any stretch of the imagination. Metallurgist (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2025 (UTC)Reply